lørdag 15. desember 2018

This is the translated and slightly rewritten version of ‘Fra ord til intensjon’ in Norwegian. It is written primarily with Alexander teachers and advanced pupils in mind.

In an earlier blog post I quoted Alexander's brother, AR Alexander, who said the Alexander Technique directions were “doings” . The quotation comes from a lecture by Patrick Macdonald. It is also to be found in Macdonald's book The Alexander Technique as I See It. In the lecture Macdonald says:

Giving directions, then, is not and cannot be the same for a new pupil as it is for one of a few weeks, months or years experience of the Technique. For the new pupil, directions start merely as words. These should be learnt by heart, in the proper order and they should gain in content with time, experience and the frequent application of a teacher’s hands. They must progress from being merely words to a release of force, which acts in certain ways and along certain paths. The words, therefore, turn into acts, but acts of a very delicate and subtle kind and these are not to be confused with the ordinary kind of activity which is commonly called “a physical act”.

In the early days of my studentship I was much confused over this matter when, talking to A.R. Alexander, F.M.’s brother, he remarked to me, “Of course, Directions are doings, but they are very small. They are usually below the sense register.” This made the matter very much clearer for me, and I offer you A.R-’s comment in the hope that it may do the same for you (Macdonald 1988 p. 5, 1989 p. 76, 2015 p. 68).

Is Macdonald right? Yes, and no.

Old school

At the time Frederick Matthias Alexander wrote his books, behaviourism was on the rise in the field of psychology and seems to influence Alexander's descriptions of his method of teaching. He describes it at least in part as a ‘conditioning’ process:

... the teacher will ask the pupil to give the new messages necessary to carrying out the new "means-whereby" required for bringing about that employment of the primary control of the use of himself which is fundamental in reconditioning reflexes. At the same time the teacher will with his hands give the pupil the actual sensory experience of this new employment of the primary control, and thus will be able to help him to maintain the improving manner of use which results from this new experience in making any movement that may be required in the course of the lesson, such as that of moving from standing to sitting in a chair. [...]

The habitual wrong employment of the primary control of the pupil's use of himself, responsible for his reaction in performing such acts as sitting in and rising from a chair, is prevented, and is gradually superseded by a new and improved manner of use which, by a reconditioning procedure, is associated with new reflex activity (Alexander 2000, p. 82)

Wilfred Barlow has the following description of the teaching in The Alexander Principle:

The Alexander Technique, briefly, is a method of showing people how they are mis-using their bodies and how they can prevent such mis-uses, whether it be at rest or during activity. This information about use [italics] is conveyed by manual adjustment on the part of the teacher, and it involves the learning of a new Body-Grammar - a new mental pattern in the form of a sequence of words which is taught to the pupil, and which he learn to associate with the new muscular use which he is being taught by the manual adjustment. He learns to project this new pattern to himself not only whilst he is being actually taught but when he is on his own (Barlow 1990 p. 194).

(Barlow does not differentiate between the Alexander Technique itself and the method of teaching it, a distinction I believe to be vital for a clear description of our work).

In the paper titled Postural Homeostasis from 1952 Barlow describes explicitly the teaching of the Alexander Technique as a form of conditioning:

I should like to stress again that the re-education is not done by physical exercises, but by means of a conditioning procedure which alters the body image and through it the capacity for postural homeostasis. (Barlow 2014, p. 89)

The idea seems to be that the student repeats the words to himself while the teacher gives the corresponding experience by creating the desired effect with his hands, and that with time and repetition, the words and the meaning (directions) will, hopefully, be subconsciously associated.

Macdonald seems to have a similar view of how to teach directions. There are several problems with such a view.

I have my doubts that this constitutes a correct description of the majority of Alexander Technique teaching, even at Alexander's time. It involves a procedure that is not very much in use in today's teaching. I myself have never been exposed to a teaching situation where I am as a pupil meant to verbalise the directions while the teacher is “giving the experience” with the aim of “linking up” the thoughts and their content. (Although one could argue there is an element of “conditioning” or we might even say “dressage” in traditional chair work).

I suspect the description of learning to direct as a kind of conditioning process was an attempt at providing a scientific explanatory model for the teaching method, and that it might have been a belief that this was the way one should teach, even though one generally didn't.

The most serious problem with this way of teaching giving directions is, however, that it is bad teaching. It is haphazard and mechanical, inefficient and ineffective.

Merely words

Macdonald is also wrong when he says that directions are ‘merely words’. The directions are never just words. New pupils will interpret the words in their own way. Intentionally or unintentionally they will attribute meaning to the words that will have an effect on the body, good or bad. What is the meaning for example, of ‘neck free’? Does it mean to relax? If that's the initial idea the pupil gets (which could happen even if you say that it is wrong), he or she will very easily let the neck collapse.

But Macdonald is also wrong on another level. The directions are not words at all. The directions are intentions. The words we use are only descriptions. Alexander writes about giving directions in Constructive Conscious Control:

Another difficulty which pupils make for themselves is in connexion with the giving of guiding orders or directions. They speak sometimes as if it were a strange and new thing to ask them to give themselves orders, forgetting that they have been doing this subconsciously from their earliest days, else they would not be able to stand up without help, much less move about. The point that is new in the scheme we are considering is that the pupil is asked consciously to give himself orders, ... (Alexander 2004, p. 104).

Directing is having an intention just like we have an intention to perform any movement, the difference being that these are conscious intentions for a movement not to be performed. We began moving before we had words to describe what we did. The directions, therefore, exists independently from words.

We can compare the directions with gestures performed by a musician or dancer, gestures that can be both natural and spontaneous while at the same time being learned and practised. A violin student can imitate his/her teacher and play a note high on the fingerboard, and eventually learn to find the note on his/her own, without knowing that this note is called A or B.

Similarly, an Alexander teacher may invite the pupil to let her/his head to move forward and up, and/or the back to lengthen and widen. Eventually, the student can allow the same directions to take place without the teacher's help. This can happen independently of what words the teacher and pupil agree to use for the directions. This way, the directions might come before the words just as the music comes before the notes in modern music education. The directions are intended gestures that can take place non-verbally.

Words

This does not mean that words are superfluous in Alexander Technique teaching. On the contrary. It is exactly because words are never merely words, and the directions in themselves are not words, that the way words are used in teaching is absolutely vital. It means that repeating words parrot fashion is out. The use of words and the verbal explanations and interactions must be adapted to the individual pupil.

As Alexander writes in a footnote in CCC:

It is not possible, of course, to give here all the detailed instructions that would meet every case, because these instructions naturally vary according to the tendencies and peculiarities of the particular pupil. An experienced teacher, however, should be able to supply these instructions in the practical application of the technique to meet the needs of the individual case. We must learn in this connexion to differentiate between the variations of a teacher's art and the principles of the teaching technique which is being employed (Alexander 2004, p. 110).

An Alexander teacher who does not offer the pupil the opportunity to form appropriate and functional verbal concepts based on practical experience with the technique is not doing his/her job.

Word are useful. For an experienced musician, the words ‘F sharp’ give extra content and meaning to the gesture that is performed to play the tone, just as we associate the name of a person with certain characteristics and personality traits.

Words can also facilitate the process of thinking directions. For example, when a pupil or student performs a procedure like ‘hands on the back of a chair’ the teacher saying the directions out loud at the same time will make it easier keeping the directions going. This is a typical situation in the training of hands-on skills in traditional Alexander teacher training.

But the teacher can also use her/his hands. Carolyn Nicholls, for instance, one of my teachers, would ask for ‘more of this’ while her hands suggested the direction. Another example is Marjorie Barstow. There are many video clips of her, having hands on a person, saying things like ‘you want this going this way’. The advantage of this approach of not formulating the directions specifically is that the person doesn't have to “translate” the meaning of the words into directions. Instead, the directions are experienced directly, leaving the person free to label them with the individually appropriate description.

The intention of expansion that is commonly described as ‘neck free, head forward and up, (etc)’ can be described in a multitude of ways, and Alexander teachers, and pupils, may develop their own ways of phrasing the sequence.

Some people seem to be unable to think without using words. For them, Macdonald's description of the process of learning to direct may be relevant, but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.

Experience

What Macdonald definitely is right about, is that thinking directions changes with experience. In principle, however, there is no difference between what a beginner does when thinking directions and what an experienced teacher does. This is similar to a beginner violinist and a virtuoso. They can both play the same note on the instrument. As Alexander pointed out, we are all giving ourselves direction or give ourselves “orders” whenever we decide perform a movement. It is the quality that is different.

When I give introductory courses in the Alexander Technique, I am often surprised that participants are able to think directions quickly and easily, in a way that has a positive influence on the movements they make. The problem is that often they are not able to register the changes themselves, or, if they notice a change, they are not yet able to understand the importance of what is happening.

Of course, in an introductory lesson, class, or workshop, the point is to try out one simple thought or idea. An Alexander Technique teacher, however, is able to think multiple directions in a sequence. This is similar to an experienced pianist easily being able to play different notes in each hand, while for a beginner it is enough of a challenge to play one note at a time. In this respect, experience certainly makes a differences.

The main difference, however, is that beginners often forget that the directions are primarily preventive. They very often try to do them. This is why the quote from AR, saying that the directions are “doings”, is very unfortunate.

Typically, beginners try too hard. They stiffen and hold on. (Easily observable by eyes glazing over, or fixedly staring, and the holding of the breath). Or they try to “feel” the directions instead of just thinking them, with the same negative consequences.

What characterises experienced Alexander Technique teachers is the absence any “noise” in terms of trying to do anything. It is direction in pure form. It is only thought. Experienced Alexander Technique teachers are also thinking more accurately. They have a clearer idea of ​​what they want and what they do not want, and they definitely don't want to do the directions.

Experience and practice in using Alexander Technique ‘inhibition’ and ‘direction’, stopping and thinking, also increases bodily awareness. There is a heightened sensitivity, and the body becomes more responsive. This makes thinking the directions easier, and at the same time it is easier to observe the effect of the process.

As Macdonald correctly points out, the hands-on instruction a person receives speeds up development. But not necessarily. The persons conscious mind must be engaged. It is quite possible to receive years of hands-on work without really learning how to direct. This is where words, and verbal interaction, really matters.

All the foregoing – a clearer idea, increased body awareness, increased sensitivity and responsiveness, give more “power” to the directions, making the directions “stronger.” But the directions have some “power” from the beginning, whether you want it or not. If you try “doing” the directions this power will have a negative influence, albeit it will also make them weaker in Alexander Technique terms.

Thoughts

The directions are never just words, and must never be something you do. The directions are intentions, a wish for movement (lengthening and widening) or a wish for potential for movement (e.g. a ‘free neck’),

Learning to ‘give directions’ in the Alexander Technique is like learning to ride a bike or to juggle, and just as devoid of mystery. It's a matter of skill and practice. You can learn to direct in the first lesson, or after five, ten or twenty lessons. A few seem to never learn to direct. The main reasons for this is that they either try to “feel” the directions, or they try to do them. The directions are not “doings”. They are thoughts.

Alexander [Technique] includes learning that we often get fake news about how we do things from our senses as they are not always reliable, notice the ”Moonwalking Bear“ effect. This really helps students see that it is hard wired into us at some level to edit the information we receive. Humans quickly focus on what seems to be important in a situation and not always reliably. Sometimes this is a sort of safety mechanism e.g. seeing a stick and thinking it's a snake or over-adapting to being in pain by standing on one leg. Observing these false alarms help us understand that life is not always an emergency. Explaining Alexander work helps students to get a more reliable sense of how they do things not only by improving their senses, but also by thinking through more intelligently and changing their relationship to getting things wrong (Kleinman 2018, s 29).

*Sitat fra Alexanders bok Constructive Conscious Control:Influence of Sensory Appreciation Upon Conception in All Psycho-Physical ActivityThis dependence of the process of conception upon the general psycho-physical condition is a factor of paramount importance. For if, as we contend, all so-called mental processes are mainly the result of sensory experiences in psycho-physical action and reaction, it will be obvious that in our conception of how to employ the different parts of the mechanism in the acts of everyday life we are influenced chiefly by sensory processes (feeling). Thus we may receive a stimulus through something we hear, something we touch, or through some other outside agency; in every case, the nature of our response, whether it be an actual movement, an emotion, or an opinion, will depend upon the associated activity, in action and reaction, of the processes concerned with conception and with the sensory and other mechanisms responsible for the "feeling" which we experience. This associated activity is referred to throughout my work as sensory appreciation.

... we must be prepared, in cases where the instinctive processes are unreliable, to restore the sensory appreciation to that standard of reliability upon which the adequacy of the functioning of all psycho-physical processes depends (Alexander 2004, s. 22-23)

Kleinman, Judith. 2018. Alexander in Secondary and Tertiary Education: A Workbook and Practical Guide to Teaching the Alexander Technique in Secondary Schools and Tertiary Institutions. The Developing Self.

Weed, Don. 2004. What You Think Is What You Get: An Introductory Text Book for the Study of the Alexander Technique. ITM Publications.

lørdag 27. oktober 2018

This is a translated and slightly rewritten version of the blog post Tenke ikke gjøre in Norwegian.

The Alexander Technique is about using your awareness in such a way that you avoid dis-coordinating yourself, thereby facilitating easy and efficient movement. Sometimes a little bit of awareness of the length of your body is sufficient to prevent any tendency for dis-coordination, sometimes even just stop trying too hard. At other times, you must think more actively.

Intentions

The 'directions', the mental messages we use in the Alexander Technique, often expressed as: let the neck be free, let your head go forward and up, let your back lengthen and widen, etc., can be seen as intention for movement. The purpose of these directions is primarily preventive. We want to avoid tightening our necks, pulling our heads backwards and downwards, shortening and narrowing our backs. This is based on the simple fact that any discoordination of the musculoskeletal system will manifest as reduction of length, either by muscular compression or by collapse, (or both).

We could formulate the directions differently. We could formulate them as explicitly preventive, saying that we wish to not pull the head back and down, to not shorten and narrow the back. In his classic book, The Alexander Technique As I See It, Patrick Macdonald labelled this way of wording the directions as 'negative directions' (Macdonald 1989, p 76, 2015, p 68). Formulating the directions as a positive wish for expansion is more common, and is maybe, in some situations, more effective.

In a previous blog post I compared giving directions to thinking about something, saying that it was as easy as thinking about a banana. (Thanks to teacher Fran Engel for the inspiration). Perhaps I should have written that it's like wanting to have a banana. Having a wish for something is different from just thinking about something. Understanding this difference is vital for understanding the Alexander Technique principle of 'giving directions.'

Giving directions means having a wish for movement, but it's a movement you can not do, a movement that you by all means must not try to do. Trying to do the movement defeats its purpose since it is meant to be preventive. The purpose is to avoid something.

Doings

Alexander's brother, AR (Albert Redden) was also a teacher of the technique He once said to a student:

Of course, Directions are doings, but they are very small. They are usually below the sense register (Macdonald 1989, 76, 2015, p. 68).

In a way he was right. Just imagining movement is sufficient to start the movement process. At this initial level it is maybe artificial to distinguish between wanting to do something and actually performing the act. But this also means that it is completely unnecessary to do anything more than wishing for movement. Something will happen.

AR appears to have been a practical person and a good teacher. I think he said what he said to explain to a bewildered student that the directions should be given with some intensity, that they should be a wish for something and not just a thought about something. Unfortunately, the quote from AR has been used as an excuse to do something more than just thinking the directions.

Sometimes, in certain situations, we must do more than just thinking. For example, if you have ended up in a slump, you must do an active physical movement to come up out of the slump. Just thinking the directions could maybe improve your situation in that position, to some degree, but you'll never get out of the slump without actual movement. This movement is not the directions, even if they go quite literally in the same direction. It's a physical movement like anybody else you do, a movement you perform with direction.

Mental

When we are thinking the Alexander Technique directions, something will happen. Most of what happens, if not all, will be below what we can sense directly. The directions are thoughts, and we can't feel our thoughts. What we can do is experience the effect of the directions indirectly by observing the change in the quality of our movements. Because we want something to change, it is very tempting to do something to feel the change directly. We want immediate confirmation. Especially for beginners, it's tempting to do something physically to get the satisfaction of (perceived) success. But even experienced teachers (including myself) can begin to do more than just thinking, completely unaware that they are doing anything more than only thinking. Just as what we would like to happen normally is below our sense level, the unintended bad habit of 'doing' can be equally invisible to us.

When directions become doings, they always lead to bad habits and increasing problems. They become dead ends. To put it bluntly: they are the road to hell. That road is, as we know, paved with good intentions.

Although we are looking for changes that can be measured physically, we must not forget that the Alexander Technique is a mental technique. As Alexander said:

You think that the Alexander Technique is physical; I tell you that it is the most mental thing that has been discovered (Carrington 1994, p19).

søndag 21. oktober 2018

In this blog post, written primarily for Alexander teachers, I discuss ideas presented in the article Beyond Posture in the Congress Papers from the 10th International Congress of the F.M. Alexander Technique in Limerick, Ireland. You can also find the article online: http://www.alexander-technique-london.co.uk/beyond-posture/

The article Beyond Posture, written by an experienced Alexander Technique teacher, is interesting in that it touches upon many common misconceptions. In my last blog post I commented upon what the author had to say about 'Conscious Inhibition'. This time, I'll have a look at what he says about the principle of giving directions.

How not to do it

In the article from the Congress Papers, the author tells us that:

I have not come across anyone (including myself) who, when attempting to give directions or sending orders, doesn’t glaze over and perform some rather bizarre muscular contortions. As we explore the value of giving directions, we need to question how we are using ourselves when we are carrying out these instructions (Kingsley, 2016, p. 80).

I couldn't agree more. We must indeed question ourselves how we go about giving directions or 'sending orders'. If our eyes glaze over and we perform 'bizarre muscular contortions' we are not going about it in the right way. We are not directing ourselves in the way we should, even if we believe we are.

This is a very common problem among beginners, but even experienced Alexander Technique teachers (including myself) may find themselves doing something unwanted in the process of directing. This is why we always have to question whether we are actually doing what we believe we are doing.

The author continues:

In my experience. most people when asked what they are doing while giving directions, will usually report that they are focusing on some postural part or parts, or visualising some energy movement, or trying to sense some uplift or stretch in the neck and spine. But all this can only lead to a harmful form of concentration and effort. Conversely, it may induce a form of self-paralysis that creates a deadening impact upon our vitality. Have you ever had a conversation with someone who was consciously directing themselves? It’s not a nice experience. It feels like the person has vanished (Ibid).

Again, the author describes very well what the process of giving directions should not be like. When finding yourself in a situation like this it is a good idea, both for pupil and teacher, to try to describe the process in words so that misconceptions can be addressed.

When the process of giving direction is not working there are at least two factors that should be considered: the level of skill and the mode of thinking.

Level of skill and modes of thinking

The art of giving directions is a skill. As with all skills it is something that takes more thought and consideration to begin with, and becomes more automatic with time. You can compare it to learning to drive a car. A beginner will have to focus his or her attention on the task at hand to be able to apply the clutch and change gears. An experienced driver is able to change gears smoothly while at the same time having a general awareness that includes both the movements of the car and the surrounding traffic.

If someone is trying to give directions while speaking and this adversely affects their ability to communicate, then it could be that the person is trying something that at the moment is beyond that person's level of skill. It could also be, of course, that the person is trying the impossible and is using the wrong mode of thinking. Thinking the wrong way is often associated with level of skill, as a beginner often will try too hard and 'concentrate' too much.

A common and related misconception among beginners is a tendency to try to “relax”. Directing is not relaxation, although it can lead to muscular release. This is touched upon when the author of the article points out that:

On a simple neurological point, we activate muscle contractions from the motor cortex. There is no separate pathway for releasing messages of contraction. The relaxation of a muscle or group of muscles can only take place as a consequence of the stopping of the original signal activation, i.e. prevention and inhibition (ibid p. 81).

The general problem is that people think that giving directions is more difficult than it is. The level of awareness needed is like the inclusive awareness the driver of a car has of the surrounding traffic, the difference being that we are dealing with an awareness that includes our general coordination.

Another analogy is the awareness a musician in an orchestra has of the music, the other musicians, and the conductor. The musician doesn't have to try to see the conductor. On the contrary, focusing too much on one aspect of the situation could be detrimental to the process.

There are times and situations, however, when it is appropriate for the musician to have a more specific awareness. This depends on the context.

The idea that directions are simply a holding or framing in mind or little wishes or a kind of hopeful intention is equally problematic. It shares the same fallacy that the mind should be occupied with some spatial or imaginative content of the head, neck and back, thinking about one’s directions or some energy moving along the spine, an idea of “up”. The moment we request our pupils to hold any particular content in mind, we are actually compromising their spontaneity and their ability to fully participate in the present moment (ibid p. 80-81).

Unfortunately, the author does not differentiate between 'thinking about something' and 'having and intention'. It is necessary to understand the difference to understand the concept of Alexander Technique directing.

What the author seeks to address here, I think, must be the mistake of 'thinking too much', of trying to think in too much detail, and of having in mind ideas that can not be related to the situation at hand. If we can't relate the content to present activity; if the ideas we have can't be integrated into our activity, they are useless, even if they could work perfectly well in another context.

There are two situations where quite specific and detailed directions could be warranted. This is when dealing with specific habits, as exemplified in the chapters The Evolution of a Technique and The Stutterer in Alexander's The Use of the Self; or when learning new motor skills like learning to play a musical instrument.

When for instance applying the Alexander Technique to the execution of a difficult passage on the violin, it is necessary for the player to ensure that he/she has a clear concept of the patterns of fingering and bowing required. This concept is part of what we call 'the means whereby'. This concept is the plan for what we could label 'secondary orders'. These are the messages necessary for the execution of the planned movement.

Quality

An increase in mental content might potentially lead to lack of quality, and as the author says, quite rightly, quality is everything.

The real ‘change in thinking’ that Alexander was ultimately aiming for, and the real essence of “thinking in activity”, is not intended to lead to an increase in mental content and mental clutter, but rather a change in quality of thinking. Content thinking embodies mere ghosts in a machine, detached from the sphere of true relationship, whereas quality thinking offers the potential of a way of being in connection to the world (ibid p. 81).

But the author seems to be equating any specific content to a lack of quality, regardless of context. Instead, he sees directions as a “state” rather than elements of a practical skill:

Directions can be understood as the ongoing state of harmony or distortion that is present within each of us and at every moment (ibid p. 81).

This description is correct, of course. We are directing all the time, for the most part subconsciously, and with good 'use' this will entail a state of harmony. Sometimes, when all is working well, all we have to do is to make sure that we don't get in the way. 'The right thing will do itself,' as Alexander said, and the author writes, quoting Margaret Goldie.

Confusion

The question is: how do we get to this desirable state? How do we stop doing the wrong thing? The author can't really tell us. What he does tell us is that:

The idea of giving directions has confused generations. (ibid p. 79)

This might be true, but again, this is because we are making things more difficult than they are. According to Alexander, giving directions is not difficult at all:

Another difficulty which pupils make for themselves is in connexion with the giving of guiding orders or directions. They speak sometimes as if it were a strange and new thing to ask them to give themselves orders, forgetting that they have been doing this subconsciously from their earliest days, else they would not be able to stand up without help, much less move about. The point that is new in the scheme we are considering is that the pupil is asked consciously to give himself orders, evolved from a consideration of the requirements, not of a subconscious, but of a conscious, reasoning use of the organism, (Alexander, 2004, p. 104).

Instead of trying to explain how to give directions, the author resort to mysticism:

The way out of this maze is to ask ourselves, “Who is the Director?” Do we really believe that the source of our directions resides in the neocortex, our relatively new brain? How can our limited brains comprehend the vastness of the flow of life, much less direct it consciously? It is much wiser, and more true to know that we are directed by Nature rather than the other way around (Kingsley 2016, p. 79).

It seems that the author thinks that the process of giving conscious directions, as Alexander suggested, is pointless. We have to leave it to 'Nature', whatever that means. Somewhere else the author says the state created by the directions is: 'a vital force'. The author probably adheres to a vitalistic world view. This way of seeing the world is old fashioned, outdated, and based on superstition. Vitalism is unfortunately quite common among Alexander Technique teachers. I will address this in another article.

The author is probably right when he says that the directions do not come from the neo-cortex. As with all our intentions they probably originate at the subconscious level. But we have no reason to believe that they originate anywhere else than in our brain.

Thinking or imagining, however, that the directions come from somewhere else, could possibly be of some practical use. It could facilitate giving directions without interfering by trying to do them. François Delsarte, one of Alexander's sources of inspiration, taught pupils to direct themselves while looking in the mirror. It is worth trying.

Denial

The directions we use in the Alexander Technique can take many shapes and forms. My view is that anything is allowed as long as it works, and as long as we are clear about potential pitfalls, and about what is real and not.

As a basis, however, I think it is fundamentally important that we take as a starting point the physical facts of the landscape of our bodies. (“Nature,” if you like).

Vitalists, as the author of Beyond Posture, tend in my experience to not regard facts as particularly important. The author writes:

If it is true that we are directed by Nature, then consciously sending the head forward and up makes no sense. And where is forward and up? It cannot exist geographically. It can’t be a place, nor an angle, nor a sensation, and not even a relationship ... In fact, the less we know about forward and up the better (ibid p. 80).

For a beginner, the instruction 'forward and up' is potentially more of a problem than an aid. (I have been there myself). For us professional Alexander Technique teachers, however, it is part of our job, (and training I hope), to understand it as fully as possible. Although we might choose to not address the phenomenon at all in our teaching, 'forward and up' relates to basic anatomical facts about how our bodies work. These facts are the same whether or not we choose to support the idea of the existence of a primary control. 'Forward and up!' is, ironically, what 'Nature' tells us.

Let or put

The author seems to discard of the classic directions, with one exception:

The most helpful element of the classic directions is the 'let' or 'allow' rather than the postural details that follow (ibid, p. 80).

Using the words 'let' or 'allow' could possibly help us to not try to hard, poetically described:

If we chase after butterflies, it will surely fly away, but if we move towards inner stillness, the butterfly might just alight on our shoulder (ibid).

The author says about the words 'let' or 'allow':

This was a dramatic shift from Alexander’s earlier request to “put” the head forward and up. (ibid).

In the notes to the article he says:

Alexander first used this new formula in Use of the Self, 1932, but he does not indicate when he changed his formulation (ibid, p. 88).

This is not correct. In The Use of the Self Alexander uses the phrase 'put the head forward and up'. He did not use the words 'let' or 'allow' in connection with directions or orders in any of his books, except that in the description of performing 'hands on the back of a chair' in Constructive Conscious Control he writes about the wrists:

(2) To allow the wrist of the left arm to be curved inwards towards the right, and the wrist of the right arm to be curved inwards towards the left.

(3) To allow the elbow of the left arm to be curved outwards towards the left, and the elbow of the right arm to be curved outwards towards the right. (Alexander 2004, p. 119)

Alexander seems to have used the word 'let' in teaching, though. In the Bedford Lecture from 1934 he says: '… I am going to let my head go forward and up out of my body' (Alexander 1995). The change in use of words most likely happened between 1932 and 1934.

Preventative

Towards the end of the section 'Giving Directions' the author finally comes to the crux of the matter:

Alexander described the giving of directions as primarily preventative, that is to neutralise our unconscious reactions of mind-body distortion. This is non-doing in the fullest sense. (Kingsley p. 81).

The directions are primarily preventative. They are part of the process of 'stop doing the wrong thing.' This is why they work, when understood and applied mindfully.

The author continues:

For example, the direction “stay back and up”, is not simply a spatial demand. It is rather a description of a psychophysical attitude of alert and relational non-merging that we are supported in maintaining by the teacher, and increasingly in our everyday life (Kingsley p. 81).

There are no reasons why other, 'classical', directions like 'head forward and up' couldn't be given in the same way as 'stay back and up'. As always, we end up coming back to the basic Alexander Technique premise that if something doesn't work, like giving directions, then maybe it isn't the directions, the 'what', that is wrong, but how we go about it. We need to change our thinking, not the wording of the directions.